FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOSS MURPHYS LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR15762/03/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by the worker who was employed by her brother-in-law to work in the former family business, the appointment was an informal "family-style" arrangement. After 9 weeks and 4 days the worker was dismissed. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 17th December, 2004, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
“Accordingly, I recommend that Boss Murphy's Limited should agree to pay the claimant a once-off lump sum of €5,000 and that the claimant should accept this lump sum in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute relating to her employment with Boss Murphy Limited".
- On the 21st January, 2005 the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the grounds that he cannot accept the Rights Commissioner's remark that the Company had acted "shabbily" in this case. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th June, 2005.
(The claimant was mentioned in the Rights Commissioners recommendation)
3.1 The claimant was offered a position with her brother-in-law, which she accepted. She was not given any job specification, but it was assumed that she would be acting as Assistant Manager. She was offered a salary plus accommodation.
2. The claimant maintains that when she commenced employment there were no systems in place. Due to casual staff returning to school there was not enough staff cover. The claimant also maintains that she had to work long hours without pay, and found it difficult to get any time off. Her health suffered due to the long hours worked.
3. The claimant maintains that she had been dismissed without any warnings having been given to her previously. She was also very aggrieved at the way the dismissal took place, and that the employer had informed members of her family of the pending dismissal before her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1The employer cannot accept that he acted "shabbily" and cannot let this statement remain on the record. Shabby is defined as "mean, dishonourable and stingy" and the employer rejects this suggestion by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The Company was a good, fair, honest and ethical employer at all times and rejects in the strongest possible terms that it acted in a shabby manner.
3. The employer's motivation in offering the claimant a job was based on kindness and desire to give her an opportunity to begin a new life after her business collapsed. She was employed with the best possible intentions and it made no sense to offer her a job and dismiss her for no apparent or good reason in less than three months.
4. The employer cannot accept that it should pay a "significant" lump sum settlement of €5,000 which is based on a one-sided narrative that includes no comment whatsoever on the evidence presented in relation to the reasons for dismissing a person who was employed for less than 10 weeks.
DECISION:
The case before the Court is an appeal by the employer of a Rights Commissioner recommendation, which recommended that the employer should pay the claimant a significant lump sum in settlement of all matters in dispute. The employer appealed against the case on the basis that the Rights Commissioner held that the claimant “was treated shabbily by her employer”.
The Rights Commissioner in his deliberations, expressed his concern about this case, where both parties made serious and deeply personal accusations against each other. Against this background he made every effort to broker a settlement between the parties.
Similarly, bearing in mind the family connections and in recognition of the very personal and divisive relationship which emanated from the employment history of the parties, the Court was also of the view that it would be prudent to find a mutual resolution to this dispute and made strenuous efforts in that regard. While the employer was prepared to accept that there were rights and wrongs on both sides and was prepared to make a gesture of goodwill payment in full and final settlement of all claims, this was not acceptable to the claimant.
Having examined all the evidence presented to it, the Court concurs with the view that there were rights and wrongs on both sides, which gave rise to real personal difficulties in the employment relationship. However, having considered both submissions the Court does not concur with the Rights Commissioner’s conclusion that the claimant was treated shabbily. There were particular circumstances around the handling of the dismissal, which could not be considered the norm.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court determines that the sum of €5000, as recommended by the Rights Commissioner, should be paid to the claimant on the basis that all allegations made by either party should be deemed withdrawn and finalised. The Court determines that the claimant should accept this payment in full and final settlement of all matters.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th_September, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.